Outcomes for individuals turned down for living kidney donation

Psychosocial Evaluation of Prospective Living Kidney Donors in Qatar: A Profile of Prospective Donors, Process, and Outcomes

Background

In Qatar, the Committee for Oversight of Living Donation (COLD) was established at Hamad Medical Corporation in 2014 to provide standardized, multidisciplinary psychosocial evaluation (PE) for prospective living kidney donors (PLKDs) and ensure appropriate care throughout evaluation, donation, and postdonation follow-up, consistent with legal and ethical standards. We describe the COLD protocol and report PE outcomes of PLKDs in Qatar.

Methods

A retrospective observational cross-sectional study was conducted using case file data of PLKDs assessed at Hamad Medical Corporation between August 2014 and December 2022. Descriptive statistics analyzed demographics and outcomes of COLD evaluation.

Results

Eight hundred ninety-eight PLKDs (54% men) were enlisted for 545 transplant candidates. Four hundred forty-seven PLKDs (49.8%) were Qatari; the remainder were noncitizen residents representing 43 nationalities. Most 680 PLKDs (76%) claimed a genetic relationship with recipients; 20% were emotionally related and 4.34% were unrelated. Of those who proceeded with evaluation, 88% (n = 788) were accepted, 7.5% were declined, and 4.8% dropped out. Of those who were declined (n = 67), 81% were noncitizen residents; 42% claimed an emotional relationship with the intended recipient, whereas 34% were unrelated and 24% were genetically related. The main reasons for declining a PLKD were insufficient socioeconomic support, psychological unfitness, and coercion by employers or family.

Conclusions

Standardized structured PE has been effective in identifying and addressing risk factors across various PLKD demographics in Qatar. This study highlights the importance of comprehensive evaluation for all PLKDs, regardless of nationality or relationships with recipients. The COLD protocol could serve as a valuable tool for PE of PLKDs in other countries.

Respecting living kidney donor autonomy: an argument for liberalising living kidney donor acceptance criteria

Doctors routinely refuse donation offers from prospective living kidney donors with certain comorbidities such as diabetes or obesity out of concern for donor wellbeing. This refusal occurs despite the ongoing shortage of kidney transplants and the superior performance of living donor kidney transplants compared to those from deceased donors. In this paper, we argue that this paternalistic refusal by doctors is unjustified and that, within limits, there should be greater acceptance of such donations. We begin by describing possible weak and strong paternalistic justifications of current conservative donor acceptance guidelines and practices. We then justify our position by outlining the frequently under-recognised benefits and the routinely overestimated harms of such donation, before discussing the need to respect the autonomy of willing donors with certain comorbidities. Finally, we respond to a number of possible objections to our proposal for more liberal kidney donor acceptance criteria. We use the situation in Australia as our case study, but our argument is applicable to comparable situations around the world.

Dialysis Patients' Social Networks and Living Donation Offers

Rationale & Objective

Most living kidney donors are members of a hemodialysis patient's social network. Network members are divided into core members, those strongly connected to the patient and other members; and peripheral members, those weakly connected to the patient and other members. We identify how many hemodialysis patients' network members offered to become kidney donors, whether these offers were from core or peripheral network members, and whose offers the patients accepted.

Study Design

A cross-sectional interviewer-administered hemodialysis patient social network survey.

Setting & Participants

Prevalent hemodialysis patients in 2 facilities.

Predictors

Network size and constraint, a donation from a peripheral network member.

Outcomes

Number of living donor offers, accepting an offer.

Analytical Approach

We performed egocentric network analyses for all participants. Poisson regression models evaluated associations between network measures and number of offers. Logistic regression models determined the associations between network factors and accepting a donation offer.

Results

The mean age of the 106 participants was 60 years. Forty-five percent were female, and 75% self-identified as Black. Fifty-two percent of participants received at least one living donor offer (range 1-6); 42% of the offers were from peripheral members. Participants with larger networks received more offers (incident rate ratio [IRR], 1.26; 95% CI, 1.12-1.42; P = 0.001), including networks with more peripheral members (constraint, IRR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.96-0.98; P < 0.001). Participants who received a peripheral member offer had 3.6 times greater odds of accepting an offer (OR, 3.56; 95% CI, 1.15-10.8; P = 0.02) than those who did not receive a peripheral member offer.

Limitations

A small sample of only hemodialysis patients.

Conclusions

Most participants received at least one living donor offer, often from peripheral network members. Future living donor interventions should focus on both core and peripheral network members.

Living Donor Kidney Transplantation in Older Individuals: An Ethical Legal and Psychological Aspects of Transplantation (ELPAT) View

Living donor transplantation is the optimal treatment for suitable patients with end-stage kidney disease. There are particular advantages for older individuals in terms of elective surgery, timely transplantation, and early graft function. Yet, despite the superiority of living donor transplantation especially for this cohort, older patients are significantly less likely to access this treatment modality than younger age groups. However, given the changing population demographic in recent decades, there are increasing numbers of older but otherwise healthy individuals with kidney disease who could benefit from living donor transplantation. The complex reasons for this inequity of access are explored, including conscious and unconscious age-related bias by healthcare professionals, concerns relating to older living donors, ethical anxieties related to younger adults donating to aging patients, unwillingness of potential older recipients to consider living donation, and the relevant legislation. There is a legal and moral duty to consider the inequity of access to living donor transplantation, recognising both the potential disparity between chronological and physiological age in older patients, and benefits of this treatment for individuals as well as society.

The Tangible Benefits of Living Donation: Results of a Qualitative Study of Living Kidney Donors

The framework currently used for living kidney donor selection is based on estimation of acceptable donor risk, under the premise that benefits are only experienced by the recipient. However, some interdependent donors might experience tangible benefits from donation that cannot be considered in the current framework (ie, benefits experienced directly by the donor that improve their daily life, well-being, or livelihood).

Ethical challenges in nephrology: a call for action

The American Society of Nephrology, the European Renal Association-European Dialysis and Transplant Association and the International Society of Nephrology Joint Working Group on Ethical Issues in Nephrology have identified ten broad areas of ethical concern as priority challenges that require collaborative action. Here, we describe these challenges - equity in access to kidney failure care, avoiding futile dialysis, reducing dialysis costs, shared decision-making in kidney failure care, living donor risk evaluation and decision-making, priority setting in kidney disease prevention and care, the ethical implications of genetic kidney diseases, responsible advocacy for kidney health and management of conflicts of interest - with the aim of highlighting the need for ethical analysis of specific issues, as well as for the development of tools and training to support clinicians who treat patients with kidney disease in practising ethically and contributing to ethical policy-making.

Kidney Dyads: Caregiver Burden and Relationship Strain Among Partners of Dialysis and Transplant Patients

BACKGROUND

Caring for dialysis patients is difficult, and this burden often falls on a spouse or cohabiting partner (henceforth referred to as caregiver-partners). At the same time, these caregiver-partners often come forward as potential living kidney donors for their loved ones who are on dialysis (henceforth referred to as patient-partners). Caregiver-partners may experience tangible benefits to their well-being when their patient-partner undergoes transplantation, yet this is seldom formally considered when evaluating caregiver-partners as potential donors.

METHODS

To quantify these potential benefits, we surveyed caregiver-partners of dialysis patients and kidney transplant (KT) recipients (N = 99) at KT evaluation or post-KT. Using validated tools, we assessed relationship satisfaction and caregiver burden before or after their patient-partner's dialysis initiation and before or after their patient-partner's KT.

RESULTS

Caregiver-partners reported increases in specific measures of caregiver burden (P = 0.03) and stress (P = 0.01) and decreases in social life (P = 0.02) and sexual relations (P < 0.01) after their patient-partner initiated dialysis. However, after their patient-partner underwent KT, caregiver-partners reported improvements in specific measures of caregiver burden (P = 0.03), personal time (P < 0.01), social life (P = 0.01), stress (P = 0.02), sexual relations (P < 0.01), and overall quality of life (P = 0.03). These improvements were of sufficient impact that caregiver-partners reported similar levels of caregiver burden after their patient-partner's KT as before their patient-partner initiated dialysis (P = 0.3).

CONCLUSIONS

These benefits in caregiver burden and relationship quality support special consideration for spouses and partners in risk-assessment of potential kidney donors, particularly those with risk profiles slightly exceeding center thresholds.

KDOQI US Commentary on the 2017 KDIGO Clinical Practice Guideline on the Evaluation and Care of Living Kidney Donors

Living kidney donation is widely practiced throughout the world. During the past 2 decades, various groups have provided guidance about the evaluation and care of living donors. However, during this time, our knowledge in the field has advanced substantially and many agreed on the need for a comprehensive, unifying document. KDIGO (Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes) addressed this issue at an international level with the publication of its clinical practice guideline on the evaluation and care of living kidney donors. The KDIGO work group extensively reviewed the available literature and wrote a series of guideline recommendations using various degrees of evidence when available. As has become recent practice, NKF-KDOQI (National Kidney Foundation-Kidney Disease Outcomes Quality Initiative) convened a work group to provide a commentary on the KDIGO guideline, with a focus on how these recommendations apply in the context of the United States. In the United States, the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) guides and regulates the practice of living kidney donation. While the KDIGO guideline for the care of living kidney donors and UNOS policy are similar in most aspects of the care of living kidney donors, several important areas are not consistent or do not align with common practice by US transplantation programs in areas in which UNOS has not set specific policy. For the time being, and recognizing the value of the KDIGO guidelines, US transplantation programs should continue to follow UNOS policy.

Living donor hand-assisted laparoscopic nephrectomy in a healthy individual with situs inversus totalis: no need to turn down the donor

A 70-year-old healthy male individual offered to undergo a living donor hand-assisted laparoscopic nephrectomy to enable kidney transplantation for a close relative. As required for all living transplant donor candidates, extensive screening was performed to exclude potential contraindications for donation. Tests revealed a situs inversus totalis, meaning a complete transposition of the thoracic and abdominal organs in the sagittal plane. As other contraindications for living kidney donation were absent, the feasibility of this procedure was determined multidisciplinary. A successful donation procedure was performed without surgical complications for the donor and good short-term transplant outcomes. In line with current developments that have resulted in more liberal criteria for potential living kidney donors, major anatomical deviations should not automatically be a contraindication. With multidisciplinary efforts and thorough surgical preparation at a high-volume transplant centre, this procedure is feasible and safe.

Kidney Donation Withdrawal and Related Factors Among the Potential Donors of Living Kidney Transplant

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to discuss the reasons for kidney donation withdrawal and related factors among the potential donors of living kidney transplant.

METHODS

This study was conducted in outpatient departments with purposive sampling. Potential donors received relevant examinations and completed questionnaires when they would donate their kidneys for living related kidney transplant. Researchers tracked the final decision of potential donors. The structured questionnaire included basic data, psychosocial adjustment to illness scale, and decisional conflict scale.

RESULTS

A total of 53 potential donors participated in this study, 46 of whom completed the kidney donation surgery (86.6%). The factors related to the final decision of kidney donation or kidney donation withdrawal included self-ranking health condition, value clarity, feeling supported in decision making, and overall decisional conflict.

CONCLUSION

Organ transplant teams should conduct a complete physical and psychological assessment of potential donors, provide information and support, and assist potential donors to clarify their true values and willingness to undergo kidney donation. Thus, each potential donor can decide to donate in true accordance with their willingness.

Variation of ApoL1 Testing Practices for Living Kidney Donors

INTRODUCTION

Tests exist for ApoL1 genetic variants to determine whether a potential donor's kidneys are at increased risk of kidney failure. Variants of the ApoL1 gene associated with increased risk are primarily found in people with West African ancestry. Given uncertainty about clinical implications of ApoL1 test results for living kidney donors and recipients and the lack of uniform guidelines for ApoL1 testing, transplant centers across the United States vary in ApoL1 testing practices.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

(1) What approach do transplant centers take to determine whether prospective donors are of West African ancestry? (2)How do transplant centers engage potential donors during the ApoL1 testing process? (3) What do transplant centers identify as concerns and barriers to ApoL1 testing? and (4) What actions do transplant centers take when a potential donor has 2 ApoL1 risk variants?

DESIGN

We explored the current practices of transplant centers by surveying nephrologists and transplant surgeons at transplant centers evaluating the majority of black living donors in the United States.

RESULTS

About half of these transplant centers offered ApoL1 testing. Of those who offered ApoL1 testing, only half involved the donor in decision-making about donation when the donor has 2 risk variants.

DISCUSSION

Unaddressed differences in the priorities of transplant centers and black living donors may stigmatize black donors and undermine trust in the health-care and organ donation systems. Variation in transplant center testing practices points to the critical need for further research and community engagement to inform the development of guidelines for ApoL1 testing.

APOL1 Genetic Testing in Living Kidney Transplant Donors

The presence of 2 apolipoprotein L1 gene (APOL1) risk variants is associated with increased risk for chronic kidney disease and end-stage kidney disease. Inferior allograft outcomes following transplantation with kidneys from donors with 2 risk variants have also been reported. These data, coupled with anecdotal case reports and a recent cohort study of living donors, raise important questions about the potential increased kidney disease risk for living donors with APOL1 risk variants and the need for testing as part of the standard living donor evaluation process. We identify a series of questions that are central to the development of clinical policy regarding APOL1 testing of potential living kidney donors given the current uncertainty over the clinical implications of having 2 risk variants. We explore the ethical challenges that arise when determining when and to whom APOL1 testing should be offered, what potential donors should be told about APOL1 testing, how test results should be used to determine suitability for donation, if and when recipients should have access to results, and how clinical policy regarding APOL1 testing should be established.

Bariatric surgery for prospective living kidney donors with obesity?

The obesity epidemic has gripped the transplant community. With nearly 40% of adults in the United States being obese (BMI ≥30 kg/m² ) and 20% being morbidly obese (BMI ≥35 kg/m² ), the implications for both donors and recipients of solid organs continue to grow.¹ Nowhere is this more impactful than the candidacy of living kidney donors (LKDs). As increasing numbers of obese adults present for LKD consideration and evidence of inferior outcomes among obese LKDs grows, transplant surgeons will become progressively challenged by how to manage these patients in the clinic. Therefore, we offer this Personal Viewpoint to the transplant surgery community in order to review the current impact of obesity on living kidney donation, highlight what weight-loss interventions have already been attempted, and discuss the role that referral for weight-loss interventions including bariatric surgery might have going forward.

The experiences and impact of being deemed ineligible for living kidney donation: Semi-structured interview study

AIM

We aimed to describe the impact and experience of being deemed ineligible as a living kidney donor.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 27 ineligible donor candidates. Transcripts were analysed thematically.

RESULTS

Seven themes were identified: deriving health and relationship benefits in the process (strengthening emotional connection, identifying problematic health conditions); devastating loss and disappointment (harbouring guilt over personal failings, shattering confidence and hope, undermining relationships with extended family and friends, disrupting home dynamics); constrained within a rigid system (denied autonomy, resorting to other avenues); acknowledging as matter of fact (accepting the clinical decision, reassured by preventing a poor outcome); reluctant to relinquish the donor identity (unable to fulfil family duty, having the donor role stolen, holding onto other opportunities to donate); uncertainty in unpredictability, inconsistency and ambiguities (frustrated by inefficiencies, questioning clinician motivation, suspended donor status, unfairness in changeable eligibility criteria, unresolved concerns and questions of own health); and abandoned in despair (lacking practical support to meet eligibility criteria, ill prepared for rejection, dismissed and discarded by the system).

CONCLUSION

Being deemed unsuitable for donation took an emotional toll on ineligible donor candidates who felt immense guilt for 'failing' the potential recipient. Ineligible donor candidates were frustrated and angry with the perceived lack of support from clinicians and rigidity of the evaluation process. Informing potential donors of available services, including psychological support, communicating the decision sensitively and with sufficient time, and full disclosure of their health status, may contribute to improved adjustment following the ineligibility decision.